MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1762018538 · doi:10.2113/gscpgbull.62.3.132

The role of differential chemical compaction in the formation of the Gold Creek Collapse Structure, West Central Alberta

2014· article· en· W1762018538 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kent R. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsLaricina Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDevonianReefDiagenesisIsopach mapCompactionSubsidenceLithificationLate Devonian extinctionPaleontologyGeochemistryGeomorphologyPetrologyCarboniferousFacies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Gold Creek Gas Field has produced in excess of 2.5 billion cubic meters (>90 Bcf) of gas plus natural gas liquids from the Upper Devonian Wabamun Formation. The Wabamun is a 220 m thick limestone that is only porous and productive where fault-controlled dolomite is present. These faults are associated with a significant episode of structural collapse that has resulted in up to 160 m of negative relief on the Wabamun structure. Compensatory thickening of the overlying Mississippian Formations accompanied subsidence. The mechanism of collapse is interpreted to be differential compaction within the underlying Devonian Leduc reef. In response to overburden pressure, the muddy lagoonal sediments of the Leduc reef interior are interpreted to have undergone a higher degree of stylolitization than the coarser grained reef margin. Differential compaction commenced at the onset of Mississippian deposition and reached its zenith during Debolt Formation deposition. During the early stages of this process, the Leduc reef had been a closed diagenetic system that limited the magnitude of differential compaction. Debolt age rapid subsidence induced faulting that extended upwards from the Leduc through to the Debolt Formation. It is interpreted that CaCO3 saturated fluids were expelled from the Leduc reef and flowed upwards along the faults through the overlying Mississippian sediments and presumably to the surface. This permitted chemical compaction to proceed within the reef at a greatly accelerated rate leading to reef collapse. A second, more modest period of collapse occurred slightly later during Stoddart Group deposition. Seismic data along with isopach and structural mapping were used to quantify the amount of compensatory thickening that occurred and to establish the chronology of associated faulting. The Gold Creek Collapse Structure formed in three stages during the Mississippian Period. The first stage occurred during deposition of the Exshaw to Shunda Formation interval. The second stage occurred during Debolt Formation deposition and the remaining subsidence occurred during Stoddart Group deposition. Depth of burial of the Gold Creek Leduc Reef increased from 335 m to 743 m during stage one. During stages two and three the depth of burial increased to 992 m and 1035 m, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207